Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
You're probably right Dan, but shouldn't we wait for the trial to get the facts first?
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
My gut reaction has next to nothing with current law. It’s a gut reaction.Uh, not trying to practice law here, but since when did second degree murder become a capital offense?
I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
Nothing I said is contradictory. I don’t think the state should be allowed to use a death penalty. But if society decides it should be allowed then what those 5 thugs did to that young man should be a cut and dried example of where to use it. I would be most happy to hear your response on why that is not so."Adamantly opposed to the death penalty" and "need to fry, every single one of them"... all in the same paragraph. Impressive Dan. You really out-did yourself this time.
I too am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but I don't want to see it applied to these five officers just as I don't want to see it applied to anyone. What these individuals did is repugnant and they should definitely be held responsible for their actions. We don't need the death penalty though.I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.
I don’t think the state should be allowed to use a death penalty. But if society decides it should be allowed then what those 5 thugs did to that young man should be a cut and dried example of where to use it.
I would be most happy to hear your response on why that is not so.
No, it smells nothing like that. If there’s going to be a death penalty, if the state is going to be allowed to put people to death then this would be one of the places where it should apply.That smells like "rules for thee but not for me".
Again, how can you be adamantly opposed to the death penalty but still have a gut reaction that it should be used against certain individuals?No, it smells nothing like that. If there’s going to be a death penalty, if the state is going to be allowed to put people to death then this would be one of the places where it should apply.
Of course you would see it that way.For someone as vehemently anti-government as Dan claims to be, he sure waves that statist flag proudly when its fits his narratives.
carry on
He always does this.For someone as vehemently anti-government as Dan claims to be, he sure waves that statist flag proudly when its fits his narratives.
It’s a gut reaction. Frankly I don’t know how anyone could watch while those five thugs beat that young man to death as he cradled himself in a fetal position and called out for his mother, got up and ran for his life - LITERALLY ran for his life - only to be caught and beat some more, then watch as the murderers fist bump each other when it was over and not think to himself that they deserve to be on the receiving end of the same punishment they handed out. You do understand what a gut reaction is, don’t you?Again, how can you be adamantly opposed to the death penalty but still have a gut reaction that it should be used against certain individuals?
I understand it was your gut reaction. What I am asking you though is how you can claim to be adamantly opposed to the death penalty, yet still have a gut reaction that these five officers should face the death penalty?It’s a gut reaction.
I guess your gut and my gut react differently. A gut reaction is not always a reasonable reaction, and normally reason prevails.I understand it was your guy reaction. What I am asking you though is how you can claim to be adamantly opposed to the death penalty, yet still have a gut reaction that these five officers should face the death penalty?
I too am adamantly opposed to the death penalty but I had no gut reaction to impose the death penalty on these officers. That is because I adamantly oppose the death penalty. I too am appalled by what these officers did, and if they are found guilty in a court of law, I want to see the book thrown at them. As is the case for other acts of violence I find appalling and indefensible. But I don't resort to a gut reaction that contradicts the principles and values I hold.
Of course you would see it that way.
Laissez-faire does not mean what you are presenting it as. That may be why you get so many things confused. It would seem your world view is clouded by misunderstanding what some words actually mean. That may be why so often things you say make no sense, you’re off on a wild goose chase of unintelligible irrelevance.Everyone sees it that way, Dan. Singling me out does you no favors…it only serves to reinforce your passive-aggressive tendencies lol
You claim social media corporations don’t have the right to censorship based on free market forces, which is also antithetical to your laissez-faire approach to business.
You’re undoubtedly the most wishy-washy poster on the board…and that moniker steams you up inside, doesn’t it? haha
carry on
Laissez-faire does not mean what you are presenting it as. That may be why you get so many things confused. It would seem your world view is clouded by misunderstanding what some words actually mean. That may be why so often things you say make no sense, you’re off on a wild goose chase of unintelligible irrelevance.
I have never said I agree with the concept of a government-regulated utility, because I don’t agree with it. The “anarcho” part of anarcho-capitalism means anarchism, a society absent a state, absent a government. Obviously if there is no government there could be no government regulation of a utility or anything else.Sooooo… a regulated utility, as you and @Ostatedchi believe they should be…is the exact opposite of your argument towards laissez-faire anarchocapitalism??? cmon man lol
The Dictionary of Dan-isms is obviously working on abridged versions…
carry on
So essentially then, your original post was not based in reason and we should just ignore it as being another useless post by you. Ok.I guess your gut and my gut react differently. A gut reaction is not always a reasonable reaction, and normally reason prevails.
No “essentially” about it. My original comment had nothing to do with reason and everything to do with disgust at what those men did to a fellow human being. I guess I had not made it clear to you what I meant by calling it a gut reaction.So essentially then, your original post was not based in reason and we should just ignore it as being another useless post by you. Ok.
Why make the post then? What were you trying to accomplish by making an irrational post?
Got it. Just another useless post by you that we all should just ignore because it isn't based in reason.No “essentially” about it.
It would bring me great joy if you ignored my comments from now on. I have never known anyone who would argue meaningless mundane trivia with the gusto and relentless energy like you do. You’re exhausting. So please feel free to take your thoughts anywhere else. It won’t hurt my feelings at all.Got it. Just another useless post by you that we all should just ignore because it isn't based in reason.
Thanks.
Lonesome Dan, everyone on this thread has challenged and laughed at your irrational original post. Those from both the right and the left. Those of us who hardly agree on anything. This should tell you something.It would bring me great joy if you ignored my comments from now on. I have never known anyone who would argue meaningless mundane trivia with the gusto and relentless energy like you do. You’re exhausting. So please feel free to take your thoughts anywhere else. It won’t hurt my feelings at all.
According to Vatican II, does the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful? Should a member of the Church publicly oppose this Church teaching?Infallibility not invoked.
🤣🤣🤣
Yes , they can, unless it is an infallible teaching.According to Vatican II, does the Catholic Church's teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful? Should a member of the Church publicly oppose this Church teaching?
LUMEN GENTIUM
Incorrect.Yes , they can, unless it is an infallible teaching.
You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.Incorrect.
According to Vatican II, teachings such as the teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful. The faithful are also not not to publicly oppose this Church teaching.
Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty
Key phrase and he has none.You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.
“Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?
No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.”
If it is not infallible, then it is fallible, and therefore subject to question. This is just common sense, which is why it is impossible for you to grasp.
And from the same article:You’re wrong as usual, dumbass.
“Is this new revision an exercise of papal infallibility?
No. Although many individual teachings in the Catechism have previously been taught infallibly, the Catechism itself is not an infallible document. This is one reason it is capable of being revised.”
If it is not infallible, then it is fallible, and therefore subject to question. This is just common sense, which is why it is impossible for you to grasp.
It’s obvious that what little, if any, religiius education you’ve had came from a life teen minister with a guitar, tambourine, and endless supplies of pizza and Mountain Dew. Religious submission requires that the pronouncement be infallible, otherwise, infallibility is meaningless.And from the same article:
"As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.
According to Vatican II, such teachings call for “religious submission of mind and will” on the part of the faithful."
"Of course, having a private disagreement does not entail a right to publicly oppose Church teaching. Fortunately, those experiencing such difficulties can have the consolation that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church “into all the truth” (John 16:13)."
So once again, teachings such as the teaching on the death penalty require religious submission of mind and will on the part of the faithful. The faithful are also not not to publicly oppose this Church teaching.
You are the one that was clearly wrong with your above answer.
As usual, when your position has been proven wrong, you resort to childish ad hominem attacks.It’s obvious that what little, if any, religiius education you’ve had came from a life teen minister with a guitar, tambourine, and endless supplies of pizza and Mountain Dew. Religious submission requires that the pronouncement be infallible, otherwise, infallibility is meaningless.
SMH. You’re a fvcking Ted Kennedy type catholic who shows up at mass when convenient and goes through the motions.
Catholic Answers is a fvcking joke, at least according to my bishop, so it’s not surprising that you and it pair well together. Pray tell, how can one be required to submit to something that is fallible? How can something fallible be unquestionable?As usual, when your position has been proven wrong, you resort to childish ad hominem attacks.
So is Catholic Answers now a Ted Kennedy-type Catholic website? Is it filled with Catholics who don't know the Catholic faith and have no theological understanding? A bunch of fake Catholics?🤣🤣
I haven’t watched the entire set of videos. Probably won’t. Just saw some of it in passing and a lot of what I saw was of such poor quality that I couldn’t tell what was going on.I’m adamantly opposed to the death penalty. But if there’s going to be one against my wishes I think those 5 cops that brutally murdered that young man in Memphis need to fry, every single one of them.